“Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of life into the straightjacket of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression is dead dogma, its physical form brute force.” — Rudolf Rocker 1

At last, on March 3. 2025, after 155 2 days and two 3 failed 4 coalition attempts, a three party coalition led by Austria’s self-declared “centrist” Peoples Party alongside the Social Democrats and the “liberal” 5 NEOS party was pronounced. 6 Seemingly relieved, the new coalition partners triumphantly enunciated their governing program, 7 corresponding to a politically correct revision of previously leaked negotiation protocols; 8 politically correct, as the leaks contained formulations not intended for the public, exposing the Peoples Party in its attempt to sacrifice basic liberties in order to retain a firm grip on power. Virtually the same handwriting remains discernible in the final coalition agreement, including controversial items such as mass messenger surveillance, thereby proving the resounding success of the People’s Party’s uncompromising intransigence on key policies by framing them as non-negotiable preconditions for a coalition. 9

A cursory reading of the new coalition program is sufficient to raise legitimate concerns about the future of Austria as a “liberal” democracy. In many places, Austria’s deeply ingrained identity as a neutral state is called into question, freedom of expression and assembly is undermined, democratic participation is curtailed, and basic liberties are eroded by further expanding state surveillance capabilities. In the areas of safety and security, certain segments of the population (e.g. Muslims) can expect considerable deterioration as a consequence of increased monitoring and discrimination (e.g. ban of headscarves for girls in schools 10). Economically, Austria experienced two consecutive years of recession 11 forecast to extend by another year 12 with declining investments, lower exports, increasing unemployment and weak private consumption, prompting the new federal government to announce an austerity package that will result in a radical upward redistribution of wealth.

Internationally, 13 the failure of the preceding coalition negotiations led by the right wing Freedom party was lauded with a sigh of relief. At the national level, only the Federation of Austrian Industries 14 was somewhat disconcerted, as they were well aware that a centre-right coalition between the Peoples Party and the Freedom Party yields the most advantageous result for their clientele. The fact that the new three party coalition with the incumbent Peoples Party at its helm doubled down on austerity measures and has put forth an authoritarian government program that is unparalleled in Austria’s Second Republic, did not elicit any commentary, as you couldn’t permit that understanding of reality in this country; it’s too dangerous.

Dedemocratisation

Whilst most commentators were too mesmerised by the “disagreement over who would lead the all-important Interior Ministry” 4 during what was likely to become Austria’s next, howbeit familiar, “center-right” governing coalition, this narrow focus overlooked the central concerns and astonishing degree of consensus exposed by the leaks of the second failed coalition attempt. On the one hand, the first negotiation subcommittee (referred to as “Untergruppe – UG 1”) of the delegation primarily concerned itself with aspects of the constitution, deregulation, and public services. On the other, the fight against antisemitism and “political Islam” stands out as a rather incongruous addendum to the three former subject matters.

It is noteworthy that on the second page (excluding the table of contents) of the voluminous 223-page leaks, under the rubric of “parlamentarism” and in accord with the spirit of “defensive democracy”, additional prohibition options to counteract “anti-democratic” parties more effectively, are subject of discussion, calling out “Liste GAZA” as the quintessential “anti-democratic” party to be targeted by legislation of this ilk. To accept this conclusion requires considerable tolerance for contradiction as “Liste GAZA” – “Stimmen gegen den Völkermord” — was an organic political campaign that emanated from within the Austrian Palestine Solidarity movement and transmuted into a political party, spanning the full gamut of Austria’s society, seeded with the mentality of neutrality and unwavering support for universal human rights and justice. The German word “Stimmen” in the above context lends itself to a dual interpretation, as in (1) “voices against genocide”, or (2) “vote against genocide”; both appropriate to the cause. 15

Having contrasted image with reality, the unanimity in accepting a lie so astonishing that Orwell couldn’t have imagined it, namely the lie that “Liste GAZA” was “anti-democratic” and therefore epitomises “the enemy of democracy”, when it was a grassroots democratic movement based on the broadest possible political unity, ought to at least cause a modicum of concern as once you begin with that premise, everything else follows. These tendencies are reminiscent of “a 1975 study on “governability of democracies” 16 by the Trilateral Commission[, attributing amongst others] the “reduction of governmental authority” [to a] “crisis of democracy,” [caused by] efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly. The study therefore urged more “moderation in democracy” to mitigate the excess of democracy and overcome the crisis. Putting it in plain terms, the general public must be reduced to its traditional apathy and obedience, and driven from the arena of political debate and action, if democracy is to survive.” 17

There is yet another troubling analogue to the Trilateral Commission report from half a century ago, regarding alternative and social media, “which are charged with having fanned the ominous flames of “excess of democracy,” commonly referred to as “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” in contemporary newspeak, [concluding] that “broader interests of society and government” require that if journalists do not impose “standards of professionalism,” “the alternative could well be regulation by the government” to the end of “restoring a balance between government and media.” 17 Legislation 18 underpinned by active research 19 towards enhancing censorship capabilities and the recent detention of investigative journalist Richard Medhurst in Vienna is in full accord with a strategy of restoring “balance” between government and media in Austria, and likely only the harbinger of something much more sinister being ginned up by the incumbent People’s Party, together with the rest of the political spectrum, expressing their tacit approval by simply omitting to comment on the issue.

Although the raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print, the New York Times did publish an astoundingly accurate conclusion of Austrian democracy, buried in the last paragraph of an article, stating that the “national election result perfectly embodies the paradox of Austrian politics: an incredible amount is shifting, but at the same time nothing changes.” 20 In other words, the public are only “spectators of action,” not “participants”. They are permitted to ratify the decisions of their betters and to lend their support to one or another of them, but not to interfere with matters–like policy-that are none of their business. 21

Fight against Islam

Another area of unanimous consensus is that “religiously motivated extremism and terrorism, as well as anti-Semitism represent an acute threat to the population’s perception of security. [According to the leaked protocols] this threat must be countered with all legal and structural means in order to ensure safety in schools, public institutions, public places and in everyday life. Both left, and right extremism must be subject to identical and equally intensive monitoring.” (emphasis mine) Whether accurate or not, this description serves to remind us that actual security is of no concern; rather an “acute threat” to the “perception of security” (emphasis mine) is called out as a prospect that “must be countered with all legal and structural means to ensure safety.” A conclusion further substantiated by the fact that the number of reported crimes remains at roughly the same levels 22 whilst the number of convictions shows a decreasing trend since 2013. 23

Let’s now look at the pretext that has been crafted to impose “identical and equally intensive monitoring” on “left and right extremism.” Towards the peak of the national election campaign preceding the coalition talks, then incumbent chancellor Karl Nehammer ominously pronounced ad nauseam that “we must not allow radicals to bifurcate Austrian society,” declaring that he “stands for stability and centrist politics.” It was indeed impressive how Nehammer fomented the division of Austrian society, by exploiting the Orwellian device of a “centrist politics” where he determines the centre and classifies everyone to the left and right as “radicals”, whilst laying the blame for “dividing our society” at the “extremists” doorstep. 24 This fearmongering narrative of the extremists, on top of the high-profile Taylor Swift concert cancellations in Vienna in August 2023, due to what can only be described as an astonishing terror hoax after reviewing the presented evidence, 25 provided fertile ground to advocate and push for increased surveillance and intelligence capabilities.

While there is tactical disagreement regarding the implementation of “intensive monitoring”, the presupposition concerning its effectiveness in confronting “religiously motivated extremism and terrorism as well as anti-Semitism” remains unchallenged. “During the […] election campaign, the introduction of messenger surveillance was a coalition condition for the Austrian People’s Party [demanding that the state] security [apparatus ought to] be able to infiltrate encrypted messaging platforms such as Signal with spy software in order to monitor suspects and a government program without this authority “will not happen under my leadership,” [according to] then Chancellor, Karl Nehammer.” 26 Freedom Party leader Herbert Kickl opposed “mass surveillance” alluding to the handling of the corona pandemic where, Austria’s descent “from a democratic normality into a totalitarian state of emergency” 26 has “purified” even some of the most ardent national security and surveillance advocates including himself. 27

However, there is congruent consensus among the parties on the issue of “increased surveillance of mosques and Islamic schools, as they serve as recruitment sites for extremist movements,” claims delivered ex cathedra, untroubled by evidence. One concrete step towards this goal is pronounced by “upgrading the Documentation Centre for Political Islam, including increased parliamentary involvement,” providing state funded and directed scientific credence 28 to arab racism 29 of a kind that if anyone elicited anything remotely similar towards jews, it would evoke memories of “Der Stürmer”.

Furthermore, Austrian political and media coverage of its “fight against Islam” 30 31 is emblematic of Orwell’s problem; “[that] is to explain why we know and understand so little, even though the evidence available to us is so rich. [One must be] impressed with the ability of [the Austrian political spectrum] to instil beliefs that are firmly held and widely accepted, although they are completely without foundation and often plainly at variance with obvious facts about the world around us;” 32 obvious facts such as the publication of an EU-wide survey among immigrants and their children, by the EU–Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), exposing that “one in two Muslims in the EU face racism and discrimination in their daily life – a sharp rise since 2016.” 33 Whilst one can not fault the Austrian press for failing to report on the survey, in the cases where it was covered, root cause analysis was tacitly omitted with headlines aimed at discrediting any notion of objectivity by stating that “Muslims in Austria subjectively feel most discriminated against” 34 (emphasis mine). Having reviewed the surveys’ methodology, it requires an astonishing level of ignorance to dismiss that “Muslim respondents in Austria (66% in the 12 months before the survey and 74% in the 5 years before the survey) experienced the highest levels of discrimination on any ground,” 33 let alone the fact that Austria consistently ranks worst on almost all aspects that have been surveyed; an outcome that ought to prompt widespread condemnation and critique of Austrian integration and immigration policies. However, one would search in vain to find even a single proposal in the coalitions government program addressing the startling levels of racism against Muslims in Austria, an outcome that is completely at odds with the fact that Islam represents the second largest creed in Austria according to official government statistics.

The issue of racism against Muslims is not only absent from the framework of discussion, there are many policy proposals in the final government program aimed at actively accelerating discrimination and exclusion of Islam, and thereby Muslims, from the rest of society.

Fight against Antisemitism

Rarely does history offer a perfect parallel, however, an analogous FRA survey “on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU,” 35 published a few months earlier, facilitates intriguing insights by contrasting the media coverage as well as the dichotomy of policies proposed to address both studies. The survey concluding that “Jews in Europe still face high levels of antisemitism” received widespread coverage, ominously expounding that one out of two jewish EU citizens considers leaving Europe, 36 with US president Joe Biden 37 advocating for “Israel [as] a safe haven for Jews”, standing by his identification as a Zionist, 37 within a few days of the announcement of the survey. While Biden did not mention whether his remarks were caused by that particular publication, his statements were nevertheless “timely” and “appropriate”, as Israeli interest groups presented similar studies 38 39 in the US.

Most remarkable was the reaction in terms of proposed and de facto existing policies to combat antisemitism in Austria, with the latter comprising a comprehensive package, approved in 2021, citing 38 measures lauded as a “strategic defence against antisemitism”, pronouncing soon thereafter that 28 out of the 38 proposed measures have already been implemented successfully. 40 Using the latest reports on the rise of antisemitism in Austria furnished by the Jewish Community in Vienna revealed a stark increase of antisemitism in the digital realm. Therefore, Karoline Edtstadler, Federal Minister for EU and Constitutional Affairs in the Federal Chancellery, announced in a 2024 press conference that “it was clear […] that [existing] measures would always have to be questioned, adapted and renewed”, before introducing a new “Antisemitism Online Strategy,” eliciting “great interest from CEOs of online providers such as Microsoft, Meta and Google, who have clearly recognized that common technologies such as AI are needed to detect and delete hate or unwanted postings.” 41 42 On top of the already existing wide array of measures, the Austrian peoples party aggressively advocated for the “comprehensive adoption of the [controversial] IHRA definition of antisemitism 43 44 at all levels of government and in public broadcasting.”

Looking at the available evidence, the stark contrast between policies enacted to “combat Antisemitism in all its forms,” versus the absence of policies combating racism against Muslims, is astonishing. Not only are measures proclaimed to combat Antisemitism sacrosanct and therefore excluded from critical debate, except the kind that suggests the measures do not go far enough, they are deployed against muslim “migrant communities” accused of a rise in Antisemitism based on the familiar strategy of associating criticism of Israel with Antisemitism 45 underpinned by state sponsored surveys promoted under a mirage of research. 46 The predictable consequences of these policies yield increasing discrimination and racism towards Muslims, even beyond the grotesque levels that were ultimately to blame for the disastrous outcome of the EU–Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) survey from 2022, leading to coalition government proposals demanding that “all persons granted asylum and subsidiary protection [in Austria] must sign a declaration against antisemitism.” 47

Assault on Neutrality

Austrian Federal Constitutional Law on Neutrality stipulates that:

(1) For the purpose of the permanent maintenance of [Austria’s] external independence and for the purpose of the inviolability of her territory, Austria of her own free will declares herewith her permanent neutrality, which she is resolved to maintain and defend with all the means at her disposal.

(2) In order to secure these purposes, Austria will never in the future accede to any military alliances nor permit the establishment of military bases of foreign States on her territory.

However, NEOS MP Veit Valentin Dengler (former CEO of Swiss NZZ Media Group ) appears ignorant of the wording of this law and oblivious to the fact that 74% of Austrians favour neutrality, when he bluntly asserted in a parliamentary session on February 26 that “Austrian neutrality is obsolete,” liking his conclusion to the reality that “Europe is not neutral in this world.” Although Dengler is a member of the Austrian parliament, he is articulating policies on behalf of the EU, in violation of the interests of the Austrian people, howbeit, in full accord with his parties base trifling numerical representation. Rhetoric of this ilk is not only unprecedented in Austria’s parliament, it is emblematic of the NEOS objective to hollow out the concept of neutrality in favour of NATO membership, a likely outcome given that the NEOS are part of the governing coalition in charge of the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

It is a mere truism that diplomacy is a basic tenet of neutrality; without diplomacy, neutrality fails. However, diplomacy was not only absent, it was actively quashed virtually across the political spectrum, as exemplified by the title of the following press statement issued in February 2024:

“NEOS admonish [chancellor] Nehammer: No negotiations with war criminals!”

These statements not only represent a myopic attitude towards diplomacy, they are extremely perilous, as Russia cannot be defeated militarily 48 without risking thermonuclear apocalypse, 49 and since arrest warrants against war criminals are only hysterically held up in the case of official enemies, these pronouncements are odiously hypocritical as a different standard applies to arrest warrants issued against partners. In the case of our clients and partners, charges of war crimes are decisively denounced as “incomprehensible,” openly suggesting “finding ways and means to allow [Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu to enter Germany unhindered despite an ICC arrest warrant,” in one of the first statements of CDU chairman and de facto neo-chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz, thereby cogently reaffirming Germany’s priorities.

These contradictions also run through the government program. On the one hand, there is a “commitment to Austrian neutrality within the framework of constitutional requirements and to multilateral engagement in the UN and OSCE.” On the other hand, the “continued engagement in foreign missions, especially peacekeeping missions, within the framework of the […] NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP)” is proclaimed. The NATO “Partnership for Peace” is an Orwellian instrument par excellence, intended to distract from the fact that Austria is being led through the back door into a military adventure that amounts to NATO integration.

In line with the previous administration, the current coalition plans to invest heavily in the Austrian Armed Forces. The government program commits to continuing the military expansion plan far beyond the original target, namely until 2032. “By this year, two percent of gross domestic product is to flow into the army annually: This goal is to be enshrined in the National Defense Financing Act.” Participation in the European air defence system Sky-Shield, a training and procurement platform for several European states for the purchase of drone and missile defence systems, is reaffirmed and thus remains in place. Austria intends to acquire medium-range guided missile systems (range of 15 to 50 kilometres) through this platform. In addition, long-range defence systems (range of more than 50 kilometres) are to be purchased through alternative bilateral channels. Furthermore, the coalition is committed to initiating the Eurofighter jet replacement program and strengthening the military intelligence services, which are to be granted additional powers, such as hacking abroad. Whilst this passes with scarcely a raised eyebrow, the scale of these measures is off the spectrum for Austrian standards.

Honest commentary would emphasise that the common sense understanding of neutrality, namely that “belligerent armies’ personnel and matériel may not be transported across neutral territory,” has been violated on multiple occasions since February 2022, most notably during the time frame when the US was advocating for a ceasefire 50 on behalf of Ukraine, hundreds of pieces of military equipment were transferred from NATO to Ukraine via Vienna Central Station. But the public is effectively shielded from discordant facts and thoughts. On the contrary, NATO, the EU and Austria have crafted creative legal solutions to work around inconvenient restrictions imposed by the concept of neutrality in the past, and we are witnessing a complete hollowing out of its meaning by the statist reactionaries of the present, the costs to be paid by the majority of the population and future generations.

  1. Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, AK Press, 2004. ↩︎
  2. Finally: Government Chaos Ended After 155 Days, Vienna.at, Mar.3, 2025. ↩︎
  3. Christopher Schuetze, Austria Coalition Talks Collapse, Raising Prospects for the Far Right, The New York Times, Jan.5, 2025. ↩︎
  4. Christopher Schuetze, Austria Coalition Talks Collapse, Averting a Far-Right Chancellor for Now, The New York Times, Feb.12, 2025. ↩︎
  5. Francois Murphy, Austrian liberals’ vote removes last obstacle to coalition government, Reuters, Mar.2, 2025. ↩︎
  6. New Austrian Centrist Government Takes Power After Far Right Fails to Form Coalition, Haaretz, Mar.3, 2025. ↩︎
  7. Jim Tankersley and Christopher Schuetze, Austrian Parties Reach Deal to Form Government Without Far Right, The New York Times, Feb.27, 2025. ↩︎
  8. Analyse des geleakten Verhandlungsprotokolls der FPÖ-ÖVP Koalitionsgespräche , Epicenter.Works, Feb.10, 2025. ↩︎
  9. ÖVP macht Messenger-Überwachung zur Koalitionsbedingung, DiePresse, Aug.16 , 2024. ↩︎
  10. Elisabeth Hofer, Kopftuch weg, Kreuz da: Geht das?, DiePresse, Mar.17, 2025. ↩︎
  11. Economic forecast for Austria, European Union, Nov.15, 2024. ↩︎
  12. Jeannine Hierländer, Neue Prognose sieht Rezession auch 2025 – was sind die Folgen?, DiePresse, Mar.10, 2025. ↩︎
  13. „Kickl floppt“: Pressestimmen zum Aus der Koalitionsgespräche FPÖ/ÖVP , DiePresse, Feb.13, 2025. ↩︎
  14. Hanna Kordik, Wie sich die Industriellenvereinigung für die FPÖ-ÖVP-Koalition einsetzte, DiePresse, Feb.14, 2025. ↩︎
  15. Igor Böhm, GAZA Is On the Ballot in Austria, ZNetwork, Jul.30, 2024. ↩︎
  16. M. P. Crozier, S. J. Huntington, and J. Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, New York University, 1975. ↩︎
  17. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, Pluto Press, 1989. ↩︎
  18. The Digital Services Act, Official website of the EU, retrieved Feb.18, 2025. ↩︎
  19. Veronika Schmidt,Die sozialen Medien so gestalten, dass sie den Menschen guttun, DiePresse, Jan.23, 2025. ↩︎
  20. Christopher Schütze,Far Right Wins Austrian Vote but May Fall Short of Forming a Government, The New York Times, Sep.29, 2024. ↩︎
  21. Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Odonian Press, 2000. ↩︎
  22. Anzahl der angezeigten Straftaten in Österreich von 2013 bis 2023, Statista, retrieved Feb.20, 2025. ↩︎
  23. Anzahl der gerichtlichen Verurteilungen in Österreich von 2013 bis 2023 , Statista, retrieved Feb.20, 2025. ↩︎
  24. Karl Nehammer on the bifurcation of Austrian society, X/Twitter, Sep.28, 2024. ↩︎
  25. Igor Böhm, Swift Terror—How the Intelligence and Political establishment exploited an Islamic Terror Hoax, retrieved Feb.21, 2025. ↩︎
  26. Daniel Bischof, Messenger-Überwachung steht auf der Kippe, DiePresse, Jan.21, 2025. ↩︎
  27. Nationalrat beschließt Sicherheitspaket mit Bundestrojaner, Parliamentary Correspondence # 443, Apr.20, 2018. ↩︎
  28. Factsheet: Documentation Center Political Islam , Bridge–A Georgetown University Initiative, retrieved Feb.21, 2025. ↩︎
  29. Dokumentationsstelle Politischer Islam warnt vor „Hipster-Salafisten“, DiePresse, Jul.24, 2024. ↩︎
  30. Jan-Heiner Tück,Kampf gegen den Islam – wirklich?, DiePresse, Jan.7, 2025. ↩︎
  31. Willi Langthaler,Mikl-Leitners „Kampf gegen den Islam“ – Strafanzeige , Palestine Solidarity Austria, Jan.8, 2025. ↩︎
  32. Noam Chomsky, Knowledge of Language (New York, 1986), p. xxvii; cited in James McGilvray, Chomsky (Cambridge, 1999), p. 239. ↩︎
  33. Muslims in Europe face ever more racism and discrimination, FRA EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Oct.24, 2024. ↩︎
  34. Studie: Muslime in Österreich fühlen sich subjektiv am meisten diskriminiert, DiePresse, Oct.24, 2024. ↩︎
  35. Jews in Europe still face high levels of antisemitism, FRA EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Jul.11, 2024. ↩︎
  36. Wolfgang Böhm, Antisemitismus: Fast jeder zweite jüdische Bürger überlegt, EU zu verlassen, DiePresse, Jul.11, 2024. ↩︎
  37. Jacob Magid,Biden stands by identification as a Zionist: ‘Israel is a safe haven for Jews’, The Times of Israel, Jul.16, 2024. ↩︎
  38. Tiffany Stanley, 63% of US Jews feel less safe than they did last year, survey says, The Times of Israel, Feb.13, 2024. ↩︎
  39. Ben Sales, 42% of Jews have felt unsafe wearing Jewish symbols in public since Oct. 7, study finds, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jun.10, 2024. ↩︎
  40. Umsetzungsbericht 2022–Nationale Strategie gegen Antisemitismus, Austrian Parlament, retrieved Feb.23, 2025. ↩︎
  41. Edtstadler: Antisemitismus, egal ob online oder analog, wird in Österreich nicht geduldet, Federal Chancellery, Mar.19, 2024. ↩︎
  42. Nationale Strategie gegen Antisemitismus Antisemitismus Online, Federal Chancellery, Mar.19, 2024. ↩︎
  43. Julia Bard, Redefining Antisemitism to Protect Israel From Scrutiny Won’t Make Jews Safer, Jacobin, Sep.13, 2022. ↩︎
  44. Jamie Stern-Weiner, It’s Not Antisemitic to Oppose Israel’s Apartheid Rule Over the Palestinians, Jacobin, Nov.23, 2022. ↩︎
  45. Peter Wetzel et. al, Antisemitic Attitudes among Migrants and Muslims living in Germany 2021 – 2023: Challenges for the Democratic State?, 79th Annual Meeting of the ASC. Nov.15, 2024, San Francisco (CA). ↩︎
  46. Eva Zeglovits and Patrick Melichar, Antisemitismus in Österreich 2024 – „Snapshot Junge“, Austrian Parlament , Aug 2024. ↩︎
  47. Regierungsprogramm 2025-2029, Austrian Peoples Party, 2025. ↩︎
  48. Graham Allison, It’s Time for Ukraine to Accept an Ugly Peace, Foreign Policy, Mar.18, 2025. ↩︎
  49. Nina Tannenwald, Is Using Nuclear Weapons Still Taboo?, Foreign Policy, Jul.1, 2022. ↩︎
  50. Andrew Kramer and Alan Rappeport, Ukraine Supports 30-Day Cease-Fire as U.S. Says It Will Resume Military Aid, The New York Times, Mar.12, 2025. ↩︎